"Lt.S.M.    Ncc\ 


b 


y 


^c\  .'Bc-r\r\e-t'\:  H.Yow^rx^^. 


'^  PRINCETON,  N.  J.  ^ 


BX  8976  .Y68  1907 

Young,  Bennett  Henderson, 
1843-1919 

Dr.  S.M.  Neel,  the  self- 
appointed  Moses  of  the 


KJ 


L 


DR.  S.  M.  NEEL, 

THE  SELF-APPOINTED  MOSES 


of  the 


/ 


* 
& 


SOUTHERN  CHU^H. 


^^ 


■  ^ 


BEING  A  RESPC^SE  TO  .^>J 
DR.     NEEIv'S  ^RTIOM'^    /^jCy" 
ENTM^EIt^y XT 


CoL  Yowf  s  S^-Q^fed  He1)ly 


V 


o^ 


^s- 


^   0§>^ 


.o<^ 


V 


APR   2  1907 


-BY- 


:>" 


COL.  BENNETT  H.  YOUNG, 

LOUISVILLE,  KY. 


/■ 


DR.  S.M.NEEL,  THE  WOULD-BE  MOSES 

OF  THE  SOUTHERN  CHURCH. 

For  many  months  past  Dr.  S.  M.  Neel,  of 
Kansas  City,  has  been  doing  some  very  wild  and 
loose  writing  about  the  Southern  Presbyterian 
Church  ana  its  duties.  He  announced  in  one  of 
his  articles  that  he  was  "just  out  on  the  firing 
line,"  and  thereby  invited  some  one  to  take  a  shot 
at  him  as  an  organic  union  scout.  Nobody 
was  disposed  to  treat  the  Doctor  very  seriously. 
Naturally  impulsive,  he  was  sure  to  make  some 
very  illogical  and  blundering  statements.  In  his 
zeal  to  be  foremost  with  the  vanguard  in  the 
Southern  Church,  who  were  doing  all  in  their 
power  to  stampede  that  body  into  Organic  Union, 
the  Doctor  has  persuaded  himself  that  he  was  a 
great  leader  and  destined  to  be  a  daysman  be- 
tween the  Northern  and  Southern  Church. 

In  all  his  writings  never,  until  I  undertook 
in  a  quiet  way  to  point  out,  not  only  his  falla- 
cious, but  his  reckless  assertions  about  the 
Southern  Church,  has  this  self-constituted  lead- 
er said  a  kind  word  about  his  own  church. 
Praise,  commendation  and  flattery  were  hand- 
ed out  to  the  Northern  Church  in  great  chunks, 
but  no  word  of  tenderness,  approval  or  love  for 
the  Southern  Presbyterian  Church,  to  which  he 
had  pledged  allegiance  in  his  young  manhood  and 
served  in  his  maturer  years. 

As  a  friend  of  Dr.  Neel,  I  was  disposed  to 
overlook  these  fiery  ebullitions,  but  on  the  11th 
of  July,  his  article  in  the  Christian  Observer,  en- 
titled "Let  Us  Heal  Old  Wounds,"  in  which  he 


assailed  his  Southern  brethren,  attempting  to  dic- 
tate what  they  should  publish,  how  they  should 
spend  their  money,  intimating  that  they  were 
moved  by  a  devilish  spirit,  and  were  against 
Christ  if  they  did  anything  but  cry  out  Unity, 
Unity,  Unity,  called  in  my  mind,  for  a  response, 
to  let  Dr.  Neel  understand  that  he  could  not  and 
must  not  thus  impugn  the  motives  of  men  who 
under  a  sense  of  duty  had  resolved  to  defend 
and  maintain  the  Southern  Presbyterian  Church 
against  those  who,  inside  or  outside,  were  at- 
tempting to  take  its  life. 

No  sooner  had  I  taken  one  round  with  this 
ecclesiastical  picket,  who  boasted  he  was  out  "on 
the  firing  Hne,"  than  he  proceeds  to  call  me  all 
sorts  of  hard  names,  and  to  scatter  throughout 
the  church  the  suggestion  that  I  was  intemperate, 
discourteous,  rash  and  even  untruthful. 

Amongst  a  certain  class  of  would-be  leaders 
who  seem  to  be  more  concerned  about  the  stand- 
ing of  the  Northern  Presbyterian  Church  than 
their  own,  it  is  considered  treason  to  speak  gen- 
erous words  for  the  history,  faith,  orthodoxy  and 
growth  of  the  Southern  Church,  and  if  one  should 
dare  say  he  had  made  or  will  make  a  brave  de- 
fense for  the  life  and  purity  of  the  Presbyterian 
cause,  such  a  one  at  once  becomes,  in  the  eyes 
of  these  apologists  for  the  Northern  Church, 
a  Pharisee  of  the  most  baneful  type.  God 
forbid  that  the  hour  shall  ever  come  when 
in  the  mind  of  a  majority  of  Southern  Presby- 
terian people  those  shall  be  condemned  or  re- 
proved who  stand  for  its  integrity,  and  who  be- 
lieve and  declare  that  it  has  a  high  and  noble 
mission  of  God,  or  that  it  has  been  a  faithful  wit- 
ness for  the  Master. 

2 


In  Dr.  Neel's  original  article,  one  of  the  most 
unusual  declarations  was,  in  order  to  justify 
unity,  that  "the  Church  is  not  commissioned  to 
defend  the  Gospel."  He  seems  very  much  dis- 
tressed because  I  went  to  the  Dictionary  to  get 
the  meaning  of  the  word  "Commission."  The 
truth  is  that  such  a  statement  coming  from  such 
a  source  is  not  only  surprising,  but  distressing. 
One  of  the  most  important  of  all  the  works  of 
the  Church  is  to  defend  the  Gospel.  In  answer 
to  this  Dr.  Neel  refers  me  to  Matthew,  Chapter 
28:18-20.  This  quotation  of  the  Scripture  is 
extremely  unfortunate,  as  it  has  no  connection 
whatever  with  the  subject.  The  20th  verse  says : 
"Teaching  them  to  observe  all  things  whatsoever 
I  have  commanded  you."  The  Master  did  direct 
us  to  teach.  Dr.  Neel  says  that  to  defend  these 
truths  is  not  the  duty  of  the  Church;  that  all 
the  Church  has  to  do  is  to  let  its  light  shine. 
Christ  did  not  say  that.  He  drove  out  the  false 
teachers;  he  corrected  their  unfaithful  teachings; 
he  definitely  declared  what  was  truth,  and  with 
scorn  and  relentless  decree  reproved  those  who 
undertook  to  teach  anything  else. 

Then  Dr.  Neel  refers  to  the  old  chestnut  about 
the  Irishman,  who,  in  response  to  the  minister 
who  was  trying  to  teach  him  Christ,  said:  *T 
don't  care  what  Paul  said;  tell  me  what  Tom 
Bracken  said."  Well,  Dr.  Bracken  was  a  very 
good  man  and  we  all  loved  him,  but  he  never 
talked,  wrote  or  thought  like  Dr.  Neel.  Dr.  Neel 
now  says  substantially  that  we  are  not  to  mind 
what  the  Scripture  says,  but  in  order  to  get  our 
heavenly  light  and  guidance,  must  find  out  what 
some  good  man  thinks  of  it.  We  Presbyterians 
boast  that  the  Word  of  God  is  our  guide;  by  it 
3 


we  must  measure  our  lives ;  and  from  it  we  must 
evolve  truths,  which  shall  not  only  govern  us, 
but  control  the  Church.  It  is  evident  that  the 
Doctor  had  been  holding  this  old  story  in  reserve 
for  many  years  to  tell  it  somewhere.  It  had 
palled  upon  him  and  he  could  not  resist  the 
temptation  to  fire  it  at  me.  It  is  quite  good,  but 
doesn't  fit  this  occasion. 

He  suggests  that  my  method  of  defending  the 
Gospel  is  to  be  suspicious  of  some  one.  My 
method  of  protecting  the  Gospel  is  to  stand  for 
its  integrity,  and  to  hold  fast  whatever  Christ 
says,  and  not  what  some  preacher  says,  or  what 
Dr.  Neel  says;  and  when  Dr.  Neel  says  there  is 
no  commission  "to  defend  the  Gospel,"  I  answer 
him  that  my  Master  has  told  me  in  the  very 
Scripture  he  unfortunately  quotes,  to  teach  men 
"to  observe  all  things  whatsoever  I  (Christ)  have 
commanded  you." 

DR.    NEEL''S    INNOCENCE. 

The  assumed  innocence  of  Dr.  Neel  in  re- 
gard to  the  Northern  Presbyterian  Church  is  very 
touching.  The  newspapers  of  the  Northern 
Church  and  many  of  its  leaders  have  declared 
that  their  purpose  and  plan  was  to  secure  union 
with  the  Southern  Presbyterian  Church.  This  is 
no  secret  among  well-informed  people,  and  a  de- 
nial of  such  a  fact  is  simply  discrediting  Dr. 
Neel's  intelligence  and  candor. 

DR.    NEEL   ABUSIVE. 

But  Dr.  Neel  grows  most  abusive  and  vituper- 
ative when  he  quotes  the  sentence  in  my  article 
in  which  I  said  "The  Cumberland  Presbyterian 
leaders  who  have  gone  over  to  the  Northern 
Church  provided  with  funds  out  of  the  treasury 


of  the  Northern  Church"  are  conducting  this 
Tennessee  Htigation. 

For  my  condemnation  and  reproof  he  relies 
upon  three  witnesses : 

First,  Dr.  Black,  a  Cumberland  minister,  who 
assures  Dr.  Neel  "that  there  is  no  truth  in  this 
statement." 

Second,  upon  Dr.  Ira  Landrith,  a  plaintiff  in 
the  Tennessee  suit  and  one  of  those  who  uses 
the  name  of  the  Northern  Presbyterian  Church 
in  this  proceeding,  who  says  "it  was  not  the 
intention  of  the  unionists  to  take  one  dollar  that 
did  not  morally  belong  to  them."  Dr.  Neel  ital- 
icizes the  word  "morally,"  for  this  is  Dr.  Lan- 
drith's  saving  clause. 

Third,  an  editorial  in  the  Chicago  Interior  of 
September  27th,  which  said  "we  want  to  shoot  one 
falsehood  that  has  just  taken  wing  before  it  flies 
out  of  sight.  Col.  Bennett  H.  Young,  airing 
again  in  the  Central  Presbyterian,  declares  that 
the  Comimittee  which  obtained  an  injunction 
against  the  anti-unionists  in  Tenessee  was  pro- 
vided with  funds  out  of  the  treasury  of  the  North- 
ern Church.  Col.  Young  has  not  the  slightest 
ground  in  the  world  for  saying  such  a  thing  ex- 
cept his  bloody  imagination." 

Upon  this  testimony  of  these  three  swift  and 
biased  witnesses  Dr.  Neel  bases  his  declarations 
that  I  have  not  stated  this  matter  truthfully. 

Dr.  Neel  very  carelessly  has  failed  to  read  the 
complaint  filed  by  Dr.  Ira  Landrith  and  his  asso- 
ciates in  the  Tennessee  Court.  He  therefore 
makes  these  statements  not  upon  his  own  knowl- 
edge, but  upon  the  information  in  a  large  part 
given  out  by  Dr.  Landrith  and  his  associates,  who 
in  the  name  of  the  Presbyterian  Church  in  the 
5 


United  States  of  America  instituted  this  action  in 
Tennessee  against  loyalists  of  the  Cumberland 
Presbyterian   Church. 

THE  TENNESSEE  SUIT. 

A  reading  of  the  complaint  filed  by  Dr.  Lan- 
drith  and  his  associates  in  the  Chancery  Court  of 
Tennessee  shows  conclusively  four  things : 

First,  that  the  suit  was  brought  by  Dr.  Ira 
Landrith,  ex-Moderator  of  the  Cumberland  Pres- 
byterian Assembly,  for  and  on  behalf  of  the  Pres- 
byterian Church  in  the  United  States  of  America, 
known  as  the  Northern  Presbyterian  Church. 

Second,  that  in  bringing  this  suit  it  was  neces- 
sary to  allege,  and  it  was  alleged  that  the  Cumber- 
land Presbyterian  Church  and  the  Northern  Pres- 
byterian Church  were  then  united  and  had  been 
for  a  long  time  united. 

Third,  that  Dr.  Ira  Landrith  and  his  associates 
were  appointed,  as  they  swore  in  the  petition  filed 
in  that  case,  a  Committee  to  employ  such  legal 
counsel  as  in  the  judgment  of  the  Committee  it 
might  be  necessary  to  defend  or  prosecute  any 
litigation  which  might  arise  in  any  part  of  the 
Church  the  ensuing  year. 

Fourth,  that  suit  was  brought  under  the  power 
given  this  Committee  by  the  General  Assembly. 

How  can  any  honest  and  intelligent  man,  in 
the  face  of  these  facts,  all  of  which  are  taken 
from  the  complaint  of  Dr.  Landrith,  suing  for 
and  on  behalf  of  all  the  ministers,  officers  and 
members  of  the  Presbyterian  Church  in  the 
United  States,  under  authority  given  by  the  Gen- 
eral Assembly  of  1906,  to  employ  legal  counsel  to 
defend  or  prosecute  any  litigation  which  might 
arise,  and  that  backed  by  the  fact  that  in  their 
bill,  in  order  to  have  any  standing  in  Court,  they 


had  to  allege  that  the  Churches  were  united,  say 
that  the  money  with  which  to  prosecute  this  suit 
did  not  come  from  the  Treasury  of  the  Northern 
Presbyterian  Church?  Under  the  allegations  set- 
forth  in  this  bill  and  sworn  to  by  Dr.  Landrith, 
there  could  not  be  two  treasuries.  They  declared 
that  the  Churches  were  already  united,  they  were 
one,  and  it  was  necessary  to  make  this  declara- 
tion in  order  to  take  the  property  from  the  Cum- 
berland Presbyterians  in  Tennessee,  who  repudi- 
ated the  jurisdiction  of  the  Northern  Presbyterian 
Church,  and  who  attempted  to  hold  their  property 
as  against  the  Northern  Presbyterian  Church. 

This  is  a  pitiful  jugglery  of  words,  and  Dr. 
Neel  ought  to  have  been  too  straightforward,  too 
much  of  a  Christian  and  a  gentleman,  in  the  face 
of  the  declaration  in  this  suit,  to  have  suggested 
that  I  had  said  anything  that  was  not  true.  Peo- 
ple who  say  what  they  do  not  know  to  be  true,  in 
the  eyes  of  the  law,  are  just  as  guilty  as  people 
who  tell  what  they  know  not  to  be  true,  and  if 
Dr.  Neel  wanted  to  criticise  this  statement,  he 
owed  it  to  himself  and  to  the  Church  which  he 
in  a  measure  claims  to  represent  to  have  investi- 
gated the  facts  before  he  committed  himself  to  a 
declaration  so  devoid  of  truth. 

DR.    NEEL's    boast. 

Dr.  Neel  boasts  of  the  fact  that  he  was  for 
four  years  a  private  in  the  Confederate  Army, 
and  for  thirty-five  years  a  minister  in  the  South- 
ern Presbyterian  Church,  and  then  he  tells  us 
he  loves  the  Southern  Church  better  than  any 
spot  the  sun  shines  on.  If  this  be  true,  why  does 
the  Doctor  seek  to  blot  out  the  "best  and  most 
beauteous  spot  that  the  sun  shines  on" — why  go 
around  with  uplifted  hand  and  open  knife  to  stab 


his  mother  church,  to  destroy  her  life  and  her 
identity,  and  to  create  strife  and  discord  and 
division  among  her  people?  He  declares  that  he 
does  it  to  prevent  the  Southern  Church  from  be- 
ing placed  in  a  false  attitude  with  her  sisterhood 
of  Presbyterian  Churches.  Is  it  not  better  to 
have  the  enemies  of  the  Southern  Presbyterian 
Church  say  that  it  is  isolated,  that  it  claims  ortho- 
doxy, and  stands  firmly  by  the  truths  for  which 
our  forefathers  contended  than  to  have  merely 
the  good  opinion  of  the  entire  sisterhood  of 
Presbyterian  Churches  ? 

We  have  not  had  this  good  opinion  in  the 
past.  The  Northern  Presbyterian  Church  in 
particular  has  said  a  great  many  unkind  things 
about  the  Southern  Presb3^terian  Church.  Dr. 
Neel's  zeal  to  prevent  the  Southern  Church  from 
being  what  he  calls  "placed  in  a  false  attitude," 
surely  ought  not  to  lead  him  to  make  a  con- 
stant effort  to  kill  and  destroy  the  church  which 
he  proudly  says  he  has  served  for  thirty-five 
years  past.  To  destroy  the  one  who  gave  us 
birth — who  nurtured  us  and  cared  for  us  during 
the  years  of  our  infancy  and  helplessness  is  the 
worst  of  all  offenses  that  can  come  into  a 
human  career.  Why  Dr.  Neel  should  show  such 
zeal  and  persistency  in  his  effort  to  eliminate 
the  Southern  Presbyterian  Church  and  to  in- 
corporate it  in  the  Northern  Church  is  one  of 
the  things  that  some  of  his  brethren  can  not  un- 
derstand. With  his  big  heart  and  his  big  head  he 
ought  to  hesitate  long,  after  what  he  claims  to 
have  done  for  the  Southren  Church,  to  be  so 
zealous   for  its  destruction  and  annihilation. 

WHO   FORCED  THE   CUMBERLAND   DIVISION. 

Dr.    Neel    seems    to   be    especially    stirred    up 

8 


by  a  quotation  from  my  phamphlet  as  follows : 
"Division  has  been  forced  by  the  Northern  Pres- 
byterian Church  upon  the  Cumberland  Presby- 
terian Church." 

I  think  I  can  prove  this  by  something  higher 
than  Dr.  Neel's,  or  Dr.  Landrith's  or  Dr.  Black's 
word.  I  can  prove  it  by  the  records  of  a  Court 
of  Justice.  These  are  always  considered  the 
best  evidence  of  facts.  Even  the  Northern 
Presbyterian  papers  will  not  stand  for  what  Dr. 
Neel  is  so  quick  to  approve,  viz :  the  Court  pro- 
ceedings by  the  Presbyterian  Church  of  the 
United  States  of  America  against  the  Cumber- 
land Presbyterians  of  Tennessee. 

On  the  21st  day  of  July,  1906,  a  Complaint 
in  Chancery  was  filed  before  the  Hon.  Walter  S. 
Bearden,  Chancellor  of  the  Fifth  Chancery  Divi- 
sion of  the  State  of  Tennessee,  holding  Court  at 
Fayetteville,  Tenn.  The  first  complainant  named 
in  this  bill  is  Ira  Landrith,  formerly  moderator 
of  the  Cumberland  Presbyterian  Church.  With 
a  number  of  other  gentlemen  he  brought  this  suit 
against  the  Moderator  of  the  Cumberland  Presby- 
terian Church,  which  refused  to  unite  with  the 
Northern  Presbyterian  Church,  at  Decatur,  Illi- 
nois. Dr.  Landrith,  of  Davidson  County,  Ten- 
nessee, J.  M.  Hubbert  and  B.  P.  Fullerton,  of 
the  State  of  Missouri,  and  quite  a  number  of  oth- 
er ex-Cumberland  Presbyterians,  were  complain- 
ants in  this  proceeding.  In  their  sworn  declara- 
tion to  the  Court,  which  was  verified  by  Ira 
Landrith  and  G.  H.  Hogan,  two  of  the  complain- 
ants, Dr.  Landrith  and  his  associates  say — nam- 
ing these  complaints — "all  of  said  pastors,  elders 
and  other  complainants  suing,  not  only  in  their 
individual  capacity,  but  also  in  their  official  and 
9 


representative  capacity,  as  set  forth  in  this  cap- 
tion and  in  this  bill,  and  all  other  ministers, 
officers  and  members  of  the  Presbyterian  Church 
in  the  United  Statese  of  America,  they  being  too 
numerous  to  be  named  herein."  This  suit  was 
brought  not  only  against  J.  L.  Hudgins,  P.  F. 
Johnson  and  others,  but  there  were  named  as 
defendents  in  that  suit  "all  other  ministers,  offi- 
cers and  members  of  the  Cumberland  Presbyteri- 
an Church  who  renounce  or  refuse  to  recognize 
the  united  church  known  as  the  Presbyterian 
Church  in  the  United  States  of  America,  they 
being  too  numerous  to  name  herein." 

It  is  a  well  known  fact  that  there  were  about 
forty-two  thousand  Cumberland  Presbyterians  in 
Tennessee  of  whom  not  more  than  seven  thou- 
sand have  accepted  the  terms  of  union  and  agreed 
to  enter  the  Northern  Presbyterian  Church.  I 
use  "Northern  Presbyterian  Church"  not  in  an 
offensive  sense,  but  simply  as  a  term  well  under- 
stood and  easily  expressive  of  the  "Presbyterian 
Church  in  the  United  States  of  America." 

It  is  well  to  remember  that  this  proceeding 
was  had  in  Court  and  Dr.  Ira  Landrith  and  G. 
H.  Hogan  swore  to  it  on  the  20th  day  of  July, 
1906,  before  John  H.  DeWitt,  a  notary  public, 
who  resided  in  Nashville.  We  have  now  a  suit, 
not  only  on  the  part  of  Ira  Landrith  and  his 
associates  in  their  individual  capacity,  but  also 
in  their  official  and  representative  capacity,  and 
also  a  suit  by  them  in  the  name  of,  and  for  and 
on  behalf  of  all  "other  ministers,  officers  and 
members  of  the  Presbyterian  Church  of  the 
United  Sattes  of  America." 

This  bill  sets  up  the  fact  that  the  church  is  a 
united  church;  that  the  Cumberland  Presbyterian 
10 


Church  and  the  Presbyterian  Church  in  the 
United  States  of  America  are  now  one  and  the 
same.  Upon  no  other  basis  was  this  action  main- 
tainable. 

In  the  fifth  paragraph  of  this  complaint  filed  by 
Dr.  Landrith  for  himself  and  for  "all  other  min- 
isters, officers  and  members  of  the  Presbyterian 
Church  in  the  United  States  of  America"  is  the 
following  allegation:  "Complainants  are  there- 
fore advised  and  believe  that  the  decisions  of  the 
Assembly  in  question  zvere,  and  are,  correct,  but 
whether  correct  or  not,  they  are  binding  upon 
every  church  member  and  can  not  be  reviewed 
by  the  civil  courts,  and  complainants  rely  on  such 
decisions  as  conclusive." 

This  complaint  further  sets  out  that  a  Commit- 
tee on  Pastoral  Oversight  was  appointed  by  the 
Assembly  of  1906,  which  was  "authorized  from 
time  to  time,  as  occasion  may  require,  to  employ 
such  legal  counsel  as  in  its  judgment  may  be 
necessary  properly  to  defend  or  prosecute  any 
litigation  which  may  arise  in  any  part  of  the 
Church  during  the  ensuing  year,  and  to  concert 
such  other  measures  as  it  may  deem  necessary  to 
promote  the  interests  of  the  Church." 

With  these  facts  taken  from  the  sworn  state- 
ments of  Dr.  Ira  Landrith  and  others,  who  under- 
take to  represent  the  Northern  Presbyterian 
Church,  suing  as  declared,  for  "all  other  minis- 
ters, officers  and  members  of  the  Presbyterian 
Church"  can  any  man  say  that  I  have  not  de- 
clared truly  when  I  wrote  in  my  criticism  of  Dr. 
Neel's  article  that  "  division  has  been  forced  by 
the  Northern  Church  upon  the  Cumberland  Pres- 
byterian Church?" 

The  Northern  Presbyterian  Church  has  delib- 
11 


erately  gone  into  the  Courts  of  Tennessee.  It  has 
sued  the  members  of  the  Cumberland  Presbyter- 
ian Church,  who  are  unwilHng  to  acknowledge 
its  jurisdiction.  Not  only  that,  but  it  slipped 
into  a  Chancery  Court  without  notice  of  any 
kind  whatever,  and  without  any  warning,  secretly 
obtained  an  order  which  deprived  thirty-five 
thousand  people  of  their  right  to  worship  God 
in  Cumberland  houses  of  worship.  The  injunc- 
tion granted  by  the  Judge,  who  upon  the  ex 
parte  statement  made  in  the  name  and  on  be- 
half of  the  Presb3^terian  Church,  enjoined  "all 
ministers,  officers  and  members  of  the  Cumber- 
land Presbyterian  Church  who  repudiated  and 
renounced  the  action  of  the  General  Assembly 
and  Presbyteries  of  said  churches  in  agreeing  to 
and  forming  a  union  with  the  Presbyterian 
Church  in  the  United  States  of  America  from 
interfering  with  or  molesting  the  pastors,  elders, 
deacons,  church  members  or  other  ecclesiastical 
agencies  who  adhere  to  and  recognize  said  Church 
in  the  use,  enjoyment,  possession  and  exclusive 
control  of  all  houses  of  worship,  parsonages, 
endowment  funds,  or  other  property  or  effects 
which  belonged  to  the  Cumberland  Presbyterian 
Church  or  any  of  its  boards,  committees,  judica- 
tories, congregations  or  institutions  or  are  held 
in  trust  for  them." 

Not  only  that — it  has  driven  out  of  their 
houses  of  worship,  by  these  sweeping  injunctions 
thus  secretly  obtained,  the  people  who  are  un- 
willing to  recognize  the  jurisdiction  of  the  North- 
ern Presbyterian  Church  and  further  enjowed 
them  from  "instituting  or  prosecuting  any  suit 
at  law  or  in  equity  for  the  purpose  of  asserting 
any  right  which  they,  or  any  of  them,  may 
12 


claim  to  have,  possess,  control  or  use  any  of 
said  property." 

The  Northern  Presbyterian  Church  is  and  was 
a  party  plaintiff  in  these  proceedings.  In  plain 
EngHsh,  it  brought  the  suit  or  had  or  allowed  it 
to  be  brought  in  its  name.  It  thus  forced  the 
issue  both  as  to  doctrine  and  property.  It  went 
fiercely  after  these  objecting  Cumberland  Presby- 
terians, and  no  opportunity  to  settle,  divide  or 
arbitrate  was  allowed.  The  cold,  hard  and  piti- 
less hand  of  the  law  was  laid  upon  these  thirty- 
five  thousand  Cumberlands.  They  were  not  given 
a  chance  to  present  their  side,  but  secretly,  forci- 
bly and  relentlessly  the  injunctive  process  was 
obtained  which  shut  these  Cumberland  Presby- 
terians out  of  their  houses  of  worship,  denied 
them  the  use  of  their  name,  hallowed  by  history 
and  tradition,  deprived  them  of  the  right  to  either 
print  or  circulate  their  Confession  of  Faith  and 
actually  restrained  them  from  going  to  law  ex- 
cept in  that  particular  court  to  assert  their  claims 
to  property,  paid  for  by  them  and  their  father's 
money,  and  yet  with  all  this  and  with  this  binding 
preliminary  decree  of  the  Court  entered  at  the 
instance  of  the  Northern  Presbyterian  Church, 
Dr.  Neel  is  bold  enough  to  say  that  church  has 
not  forced  this  division. 

DR.    NEEL's    zeal    for    HIS    NORTHERN    FRIENDS. 

Dr.  Neel,  in  his  zeal  for  the  defense  of  his 
newly  found  Northern  Church  allies,  exultantly 
and  complacently  makes  this  statement  about  me : 

"A  less  rash  man  would  not  have  made  so 
grave  a  charge  without  great  care  in  ascertaining 
the  facts.  The  Northern  Church  seems  to  have 
nothing  whatever  to  do  with  the  troubles  in 
Tennessee." 

13 


Dr.  Neel  in  making  this  allegation  has  been 
played  by  Drs.  Landrith  and  Black  and  the 
Editor  of  the  Interior,  upon  whose  words  he  ap- 
pears willing  to  stake  his  own  reputation  for 
truthfulness.  To  have  been  thus  worked  by  these 
partisans  in  the  outside  world  would  indicate 
Dr.  Neel  as  a  chump — defined  in  Dictionaries  as 
"a.  dull,  blundering  person." 

On  the  21st  of  July,  1906,  ninety  days  before 
Dr.  Neel  penned  this  unfortunate  and  erroneous 
statement,  Dr.  Landrith  and  his  associates  had 
filed  a  sworn  complaint  in  the  Fifth  Chancery 
Division  of  the  State  of  Tennessee  before  Judge 
Bearden,  wherein  they  sought  to  take  from  the 
loyal  Cumberland  Presbyterians  their  houses  of 
worship,  their  name,  their  Confession  of  Faith 
and  their  right  to  sue  for  their  property,  and  they 
then  and  there  swore  that  "they  sued  not  only  in 
their  individual  capacity  hut  also  in  their  official 
and  representative  capacity  as  set  forth  in  this 
caption  and  in  this  hill,  and  all  other  ministers, 
officers  and  memhers  of  the  Preshyterian  Church, 
U.  S.  A.,  they  heing  too  numerous  to  be  named 
herein." 

Dr.  Landrith  swore  he  represented  all  other 
ministers,  officers  and  members  of  the  Northern 
Presbyterian  Church,  they  being  too  numerous 
to  be  named.  He  undertook  in  a  Court  of  Justice 
to  stand  for  all  "the  ministers,  officers  and  mem- 
bers of  the  Presbyterian  Church  in  the  U.  S.  A.," 
and  sued  his  former  associates  for  and  on  behalf 
of  all  those  who  constituted  the  Northern  Pres- 
byterian Church. 

Ignorant  of  the  real  facts  and  without  knowl- 
edge that  the  Northern  Presbyterian  Church  was  a 
plaintiff  in  this  suit,  Dr.  Neel  charges  me  with  in- 
14 


accuracy  and  rashness.  This  record  shows  that  in- 
stead of  the  Northern  Church,  as  he  says,  having 
"nothing  whatever  to  do  with  the  troubles  in 
Tennessee,"  it  was  really  a  plaintiff  in  the  suit 
which  has  dishonored  the  Presbyterian  name  and 
cause,  promoted  unparalleled  bitterness  and  dis- 
cord, and  in  the  honored  name  of  Presbyterian- 
ism,  sought  to  take  from  these  betrayed  Cum- 
berlands  their  churches,  their  name,  their  Con- 
fession of  Faith,  and  their  inalienable  privilege 
to  defend  in  the  courts  their  property  rights.  And 
all  this  was  done  without  warning  or  notice  and 
in  the  name  of  Christ;  so  that  when  the  sun 
dawned  on  the  Court  House,  this  secret  injunc- 
tion, like  a  thief  in  the  night,  had  gone  forth  on 
its  mission  of  oppression  and  injustice,  and  the 
unsuspecting  Cumberland  Christians  found  them- 
selves spiritually  homeless  but  for  friendly  barns, 
and  houseless  but  for  the  generous  shades  of  the 
forest. 

This  sort  of  statement  by  Dr.  Neel  thus  con- 
tradicted by  the  sworn  declarations  of  the  men 
upon  whose  information  he  based  it,  may  not  in 
these  days,  when  everything  is  swallowed  up 
in  the  wail  for  unity,  be  called  by  hard  names, 
but  in  olden  times  it  would  be  very  close  to  a 
violation  of  the  Ninth  Commandment,  and  in 
polite  modern  phraseology  might  be  styled  "a 
departure  from  moral  integrity."  I  respect  Dr. 
Neel's  calling  and  high  character  too  much  to 
give  it  harsher  designation,  but  urge  him  here- 
after never  to  speak  confidently  of  a  record  and 
call  in  question  a  christian  brother's  veracity 
concerning  it  until  he,  himself,  has  examined 
such  record  and  made  himself  acquainted  with 
its  contents. 

15 


The  whole  proceeding  now  pending  in  the 
name  of  the  Northern  Presbyterian  Church  and 
on  its  behalf  in  the  Tennessee  Court  against  these 
Cumberland  Presbyterians  who  refuse  to  be  co- 
erced into  accepting  a  creed  they  can  not  con- 
scientiously believe  or  receive,  is  unworthy  the 
history  or  genius  of  Presbyterianism.  It  is  legal- 
ly, morally  and  ecclesiastically  at  war  with  the 
spirit  and  practice  of  enlightened  Christianity  and 
ought  to  be,  and  doubtless  will  be  quickly  repu- 
diated by  the  Northern  Presbyterian  Church. 
The  few  scattered  congregations  it  may  induce  to 
enter  its  communion  will  be  a  dear  price  to  pay 
for  such  a  monstrous  wrong  against  these  resist- 
ing Cumberland   Presbyterians. 

In  the  South  we  sometimes  hear  of  people  who 
go  out  into  the  fields  and  find  a  covey  of  birds 
huddled  together  all  unconscious  of  danger.  The 
cruel  hunter,  without  giving  the  flock  a  chance 
for  their  lives,  fires  into  them  before  they  have 
time  to  rise  to  their  wings  or  make  effort  to 
escape.  Such  sportsmen  are  known  as  "Pot- 
Hunters." 

These  same  methods  are  now  for  the  first  time 
introduced  into  ecclesiastical  contests.  The 
covert  way  in  which  the  Northern  Presbyterian 
Church  and  its  co-plaintiffs  and  new  converts 
slipped  into  the  Chancery  Court  in  Tennessee,  and 
without  warning  or  notice,  secured  the  hateful 
injunctions  heretofore  described,  have  inaugu- 
rated a  new  system  for  securing  converts  and 
property  which  may  be  appropriately  designated 
as  "Ecclesiastical  Pot-Hunting." 

It  may  be  that  "coming  events  cast  their  shad- 
ows before."  If  Dr.  Neel  can  defend  and  applaud 
this  action  of  Dr.  Landrith  and  associates  and 
16 


proclaim  his  peculiar  admiration  for  the  Northern 
Presbyterian  Church,  may  not  the  day,  the  dark 
day,  come  when  these  same  proceedings  will  be 
used  to  coerce  Southern  Presbyterians  who  re- 
sist organic  union,  and  to  take  from  them  their 
name  and  their  property?  EHsha  shocked  Hazael 
when  he  revealed  the  character  and  extent  of  his 
future  deaHngs  with  God's  people;  but  Hazael 
while  protesting  in  bitter  speech,  and  with  earnest 
denial,  yet  did  all  that  the  prophet  foretold. 
Louisville,  Ky.,  Nov.  12,  1906. 


17 


^"-;^'-v^v--:-' 


